aruba_extract_invoice_fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds no further behavioral context. It could have mentioned that the tool relies on previously retrieved XML files, but it doesn't. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and avoids irrelevant details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, required fields) and the availability of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial context about the meaning of direction, how to specify fields, and the role of confirm_read. This forces heavy reliance on parameter names and external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter. The meaning of direction, filename, fields, or confirm_read is entirely left unspecified, forcing the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (extract), the resource (precise fields from a FatturaPA XML), and the context (returned by Aruba). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like aruba_parse_invoice_xml which returns the entire parsed XML.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aruba_summarize_invoice or aruba_parse_invoice_xml. The description does not include any selection criteria or when-not-to-use advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.